Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolf

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 29,018 posts (30,449 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 29 Pathfinder Society characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 29,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Baval wrote:


Thats neutral thinking at best. "the world is better off without them" is a very evil line of thought.

No. It isn't. It's a very violent line of thought. It's a very extreme line of thought. But if you haven't noticed paladins are both extreme and violent.

And good.

Paladin abilities are all about finding things that the world would be better off without and then killing them with large pointy objects. In a world that needs paladins this is a good thing because that world is so horrific that it IS markedly improved by people doing this.

The chaotic neutral follower of lamasthu is going to leash some unholy spawn of something and something upon the populace. The file clerk of asmodeuous is freeing up resources to run an oppressive empire. They are helping to advance an evil cause. If a paladin chooses to stay their blade and attempt the Unlikely process of conversion that's a legitimate way to be a paladin... but so is winding back up for that second hit.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:


A Paladins first goal should always be redemption, followed closely by protection. It should never be extermination.

On the other hand, someone willingly gave their lives over to an evil god and is furthering their cause. Even if they are "just the front man" or whatever their excuse is they are enabling a great deal of evil and the world is better off without them.

Shadow Lodge ****

"gentlemen start your buffing" takes longer than most encounters.

Shadow Lodge

dragonhunterq wrote:
The point is it's not that a person with darkvision can't see shadow, it's that the shadow does not impair their vision in any way.

But the "shadow" still exists. The book is written by humans for humans after all , and those strange hairless apes are so.. humancentric they think their vision corresponds to what is.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you want people riding a giant horse riding a giant pteranadon? Because this is how you get people riding a giant horse riding a giant pteranadon.

Shadow Lodge

My Self wrote:
This works even if they are invisible

That is a matter of HUGE rules variation, but I think it leans towards that not working if anything.

i don't think this implication was considered when the manifestations rule came into being.

Shadow Lodge ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Yeah, I like his attitude. New players in general are a joy to GM for. Old players know what their constraints are and start optimising. New players don't and they just do weird stuff. I miss that sometimes.

it swings back around when people beat the game the easy way and start beating the game the crazy way.

Shadow Lodge ****

if you're all at the same table in your living room.. well you're the one checking sources to begin with.

if you're all at the same table at a convention people will just assume you're some sort of collective.

Shadow Lodge ****

Socrerer: Charm persons a bugbear guard

Guard rolls a 1

DM plays barry white music.

Sorcerer stayed behind to distract the guard. Left the wise cracking familiar with the party so they'd know if something was wrong.

In the middle of the next fight, familiar falls off the fighter's shoulder laughing at the sensations coming through the link...

Shadow Lodge

dragonhunterq wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
it would be weird if HIPS stoped working just because the person looking at you had darkvision were the same character probably wouldn't notice you standing 5 feet away from them if your HIPS was for forests and you were in a forest plus that would make the ability useless as like 80% of everything has some form of darkvision or even better sences

So what you are saying is that it would be weird if darkvision helped you see through darkness?

oookkay...

Humans writing a book for humans forgot that humans are the weird ones when it comes to seeing in the dark, and wrote an ability with the assumption that it would do its job

option 1: it merely extends the range that you can use shadow, meaning.. you're hosed because everything sees in the dark anyway.

option 2: the shadow is a physically existing thing that the shadowdancer pulls around themselves to hide.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:

Relevant viewing

... I think my gnome just found a new deity.

Shadow Lodge

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
It makes sense that shadow/darkness based HIPS wouldn't work when you're being observed by darkvision (but make sure they're actually within 60' or whatever range). They don't suffer from the same visual difficultly/distraction that normally lets it work.

I'm pretty sure they clarified this the other way, that the idea of shadow exists from a human centric vision point of view (despite the fact that humans are the weird ones and everything on golarion sees in the dark)

Shadow Lodge ****

joe kirner wrote:


Op states what gm told him. What more info is there?
This is set up as design your dungeon.
Designining it to purposely screww your players is b.s.

1) Tone : If I had an XP for every time i joked about killing players or characters I'd have 5 characters ascended to godhood by now. Under the core XP system.

2) Group dynamics: Some people like being challenged: COME ON! BRING IT! There isn't a dungeon that Overly Manly Man can't suplex into submission! BRING IT PUNK!! 000

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chronicle fishing for loot is kind of frowned on.

With that said, very few staves are worth anywhere near what they cost.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Lune wrote:

...so you have an issue with players who choose to venerate deities that are banned for worship due to "bad faith" (your words, not mine) and that the only benefit they could be getting is to annoy other players at the table...

...but you are totally ok with full on worship of those same deities, pantheons and philosophies (so long as they are made legal)?

Thank you for finally reading my posts. I've been saying it for a while now ;-)

What you're saying is absolutely terrible.

It is as rude, disrespectful, insulting, and demeaning to your fellow gamers as it is completely inane an unfounded.

The problem is not that people aren't listening to you it's that we are.

Shadow Lodge

Khudzlin wrote:


Natural attacks can come in pairs (or other multiples). For instance, claw attacks usually come in pairs (I don't know of any specific monster with more than 2 natural attacks of the same type, but the UMR allow for that).

They have to be listed as such. And then they only apply to very specific parts of the body. Unarmed strike isn't listed, are a vague concept rather than a body part (you can left foot right foot for instance, but can't left foot right foot left hand right hand) They follow their own rules.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
There's place for Khaijit, there's place for Neko Neko Chan, and there's place for Josie and the Pussycats.

Not all of them are above ground though... :)

*ow ow ow stop throwing hariballs ow ow ow...*

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

As I read that, it says that all Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. Not just 'treated as' Natural Weapons, but actually Natural Weapons.

Except you know that they are not.

What you are doing is trying to treat the rules as a 100% clear, coherent, concise ,consistent and contradiction free set of rules so that you can freely extrapolate from any one data point to all datapoints.

The rules do not work like that.

If unarmed strikes were natural weapons you would get one of them. you don't. You get a left fist and a right fist.

If unarmed strikes were natural weapons you wouldn't be able to make multiple attacks with them based off of base attack bonus, and you can.

You have to consider all data points: those data points make it clear that unarmed strikes sometimes work like natural weapons and sometimes they don't.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. I describe it as a bird hitting the window of your brain sensation

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

magic chapter

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

also the loss of all remaining sanity

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*digs for half an hour for the rules to switch deities on a cleric*

*realizes they were in teeth the entire time (same faq)

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.

As long as that worship isn't granting your character a mechanical benefit, right?

I don't believe you're saying a cleric can freely change the deity they worship.
... or can they? Perhaps my understanding of this has been incorrect for some time.

What determines if my character can be a “worshiper” of a deity?:

As a character, you may choose to worship a single deity or pantheon (the “deity”). If you worship a pantheon, you do not count as worshiping every god in that pantheon; you must choose one deity from that pantheon for the purpose of gaining mechanical benefits.

Your character’s alignment must be within one step of that of the deity he or she worships. Any character with levels in a class that grants spells or other features from a specific deity must worship that deity.

A character may only worship one deity at a time; the character may change which deity she worships between sessions at no cost. If this change requires the character to change alignment, the character is required to pay for an atonement. Any element incompatible with the new deity no longer functions. These elements may be retrained at normal cost using the rules from Ultimate Campaign.

For example, a cleric of Desna with the Travel and Luck domains and the Butterfly Sting feat switches her worship to Shelyn. The cleric may still use the Luck domain because Shelyn grants that domain, but not the Travel domain or the Butterfly Sting feat, because worship of Shelyn does not grant access to those features.
posted May 2014 | back to top


Linky

If you had mechanics tied to the old deity (or lack thereof) they would stop working.

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

NOooOOOOOooOOOO

ooOOOohhhooo

oooo

cough

Shadow Lodge ****

GM crazy:

You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.

Shadow Lodge

Unarmed strikes by and large follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They let you attack based off of your base attack bonus , two weapon fight with your left and right fist, and combine with natural weapons in ways natural attacks can't.

But obviously you can't cast magic weapon on a normal persons fist.

So to your question, i have to ask, what do you plan on doing with it?

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:

OR, the player can say that their character worships ________, and their character can say that they worship ________.

WHY?

Shadow Lodge ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about that they're missing a genuine fix to a genuine problem.

That you think that there is a problem to be fixed at all is the problem: either the geekiest thesaurus hate on for the word venerate or you hate what the characters are doing.

There is no problem here. Yes, sometimes a player option throws you a curve ball. I like curve balls. Creative solutions and whacky combinations are what keep the game interesting for the DM and keep it from being the mode lock video game simulator PFS critics say that it is.

I've had a white tengu wind up in a town of white rook. (the town mascot just walked in. This must be a good sign!)

I've had scenarios with kobolds go in entirely different directions because half the party were either Nagaji or doing some other reptile theme

The cult of the dawnflower saranite keeps fighting.. the cult of the dawnflower. (Please.. be our leader! why are you killing us! we're not worthy!)

You would be shocked at the number of encounters in this game that can be bypassed with a pig.

Encounters with villanous druids can go entirely different directions when the party has a druid.

I've had a fight and probably TPK averted when someone used profession bartender to throw a tea party

Certain scenarios can get very fun when the "odd" race involved is on both sides of the party (Gripi. Kitsune. tengu)

Weird stuff happens when you mix random pathfinders with the scenarios. This is not a problem this is a joy of gaming.

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:


Not according to this Season's Guide.

no, according to what you read into the seasons guide.

Those are not the same thing.

Non mechanical options effect the game all the time. There's no mechanics for being covered in sewer gunk but you can bet thats going to be a pretty harsh penalty on social interaction. You can be from a country without any mechanics but every once in a while there's a bonus for being from that country. there are npcs that act differently towards outdoorsey or cityfolk NPCs. There's no source or mechanical effects of gender but every once in a while NPCs act differently according to that, and even different monster abilities sometimes work according to sexual orientation.

Mechanics is "stuff there is a hard number on" fluff is "stuff the DM is going to have to decide how to work with". How a bunch of cuthulu cultists react to someone with a cthulu holy symbol is the latter.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.

You don't not get to make up random, baseless assertions about your follow gamers and you certainly don't get to get policy made about those random baseless assertions.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.

You do not have to. That's on you.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
You have a very interesting filter.

Knock that off.

You said those things. They are not out of context,

The problem isn't my filter its the dross you're throwing at your fellow players.

Quote:
Care to comment on my ideas for a solution, instead?

There is no problem to solve. You're getting your tailfeathers twisted because veneration as a lifestyle choice is somehow immersion breaking.

-Well yes I keep talking to god and he never answers- Nope. Completely unrealistic that anyone would ever do that.

Quote:
The other seems, to me, to appease everybody, but requires more work from Campaign Leadership.

The current situation is fine. Campaign leadership controls mechanics (worship) individuals control their flavor (veneration)

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Regulating the fluff they want to use for their character should be limited to the most extreme violations of cannon, immersion, and metagaming. People using that to Grief are a small enough subset of players that the DMs can handle it without needing a blanket ban on how 9 other people play their characters.
Are you even reading what I'm typing?

Yes.

Are you even reading what you're typing?

You've called people wanting to worship an in cannon god griefers , immersion breaking attention seekers deliberately trying to push the boundary of the game just to annoy you. Whether you recognize that or not that is some serious hate on for other peoples characters.

-I mean, i called him a puppy kicking kitten eating jaywalker with the personal magnetism of a slime mold, but i didn't say anything BAD about him...-

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

I like how this conversation gives you the idea that, as short as it was, Justin's childhood was pretty interesting....

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Or just assume someone doesn't "like" it, right?
You are equating everyone taking the option with a troll deliberately trying to disrupt the campaign. That goes well beyond dislike.
I was referring to you =|

Yeah, I got that, but it's not an assumption when someone says it flat out.

Some mechanics with a backdoor ban (faith of a fallen god trait, racial heritage +anything you want to use racial heritage for) need to be addressed. That does not mean..

Quote:
My biggest issue: either 100% ban these deities, or don't. We're not grown up enough to handle grey areas.

Banning a player from the crunch they want to use is a big necessity in organized play where a small(ish) subset of players are going to run for the crunch that breaks the sound barrier. Regulating the fluff they want to use for their character should be limited to the most extreme violations of cannon, immersion, and metagaming. People using that to Grief are a small enough subset of players that the DMs can handle it without needing a blanket ban on how 9 other people play their characters.

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:


Man, your degree may be in trees, but you can selectively quote with the best of us literary theory folks.

It saves paper :)

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Huh. I actually chose "vicious bigotry" because I don't think of it as a hot button topic

DC -5 spot check for the giant red button that says "hot topic" and the clearly labled "11 foot pole" with the manufacturers warning "do not press hot button topic even with this"

Shadow Lodge ****

PFS already has a reputation as limiting player options for no good reason, why limit players violating neither mechanical limits OR setting appropriateness?

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
Or just assume someone doesn't "like" it, right?

You are equating everyone taking the option with a troll deliberately trying to disrupt the campaign. That goes well beyond dislike.

Shadow Lodge ****

Pete Winz wrote:


That said, how does "not allowed for play" significantly differ from "is not a legal choice" in this context?

1) Legal choices come with mechanics. Domains, feats, traits, magic items, alternate spellcasting options, divine obediences. That is crunch. Veneration has no crunch, so it does not require legality

2) it is weird to assume that rules written a year in advance of the veneration /worship divide are going to take that divide, AND your interpretation of that divide, into your account.

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Really? What if the completely roleplay "fluff" option (and as ever, I wince at that word and all its dismissive connotations) is that a character is a vicious bigot

No. Enough. No deliberately linking an argument to an emotionally charged topic to invest it with more outrage than it deserves. Argue the topic on its merits or admit you don't have any.

Someone is so offended by the idea of someone playing a cthulu worshiper in a world where cthulu worshipers exist that they want a campaign rule prohibiting that behavior. That is N V T S nuts without lame attempts to weld real world hotbutton topics onto the issue.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:


It's people pushing the limits of the rules, plain and simple.

thats not a slippery slope thats a greased ski jump.

Shadow Lodge ****

Pete Winz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

or just keep it where it is. /QUOTE]

The problem is that there are disagreements about where it currently is. Does "not allowed for play" apply to both Venerate and Worship, or to Worship only, given the definition of Venerate? I, personally, find Andrews glossary of terms to be clear and useful. However, I feel that "not allowed for play" is applied universally (i.e., it trumps the Venerate definition). Obviously, YMMV, which is why we need some clarification from campaign leadership.

Except the words "not allowed for play" do not appear ANYWHERE on the additional resources list.

Not allowed only refers to: following feats are not allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play: Expert Driver, Field Repair, Master Combat Performer, Master Siege Engineer,

you are making really weird arguments and stirring up a problem because the rules say one thing, you translate that into something else, and then go with the exact words that YOU translated them into as if they were what the campaign, not you, said.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped.

Godsdammitno!

I have -zero- problem with people's characters. It's disruptive players that I have a problem with. Give them an inch and they'll go a mile.

You've accused people of wanting to be disruptive players just because they wanted to play one of these characters. You cannot make that distinction after equating the two. By your own words, one is the other.

Disruptive players already have 5,200 feet. Just let it go. Other people do just think these options are cool and want to play them, curtailing their character options will get you nothing towards your goal.

Quote:
But Campaign Leadership presumably banned these for some reason other than the mechanical benefits of worshipping them, because the benefits themselves could have simply been banned otherwise.

That is completely unknown to you, and isn't the sort of thing you can base an argument off of.

Quote:
So either make them legal, or don't. I don't care one way or the other. And I will happily adventure side by side with a Cleric of Cthulhu and a Warpriest of JuJu.

or just keep it where it is.

Shadow Lodge ****

What happened in actual play?

Some people refer to killing you all as a joke.

If someone didn't know me they might think that taking pizza slices to ensure survival was a joke.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:


Previously I used Cthulhu as an example of a Golarion specific but illegal deity.

We saw how that turned out, so I made something up.

How can I explain my position appropriately?

You're explaining your position just fine.

I have a problem with your position and the inconsistencies in it.

You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped.

"it doesn't fit the setting" might be grounds for that.

"That god is banned" is not the same as "that god doesn't exist" and you're treating them the same because you see it being used to make characters you don't like.

Shadow Lodge ****

Steven Lau wrote:


What I don't see is "Venerate" as a means to get around the legal Deity list. There is a reason that there is a list of deities that are not legal, they don't fit the campaign and/or can be disruptive. IMO I don't want to see the idea of veneration as a means to get around that.

Really? A follower of Ihys , Curchanas or Amaznen doesn't fit the campign and are more disruptive than Ravogag worshipers?

You're comparing the effects of veneration to how you want everyone else to play the game rather than how the game is played and thats not a legitimate comparison.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I'm from the peoples front of judea! Lets fight the romans!

"Sorry, these cultists are from the judean peoples front.

"Every. Freaking. *ow ow ow o wow * time.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:

Veneration as a lifestyle destroys verisimilitude.

Player describes their character as wearing butterfly wings, dressing in tutus, and drinking cactus juice in veneration of (let's assume a Golarion specific but illegal deity) Juju the Desert Butterfly.

As opposed to if they had said Desna , who is known to have at thing for butterflies and psychedelic plants that would explain the tutu? Would that make the character any less silly or annoying to you?

You're telling someone "your character sucks so much you can't play it" and you're doing it over some pretty arbitrary grounds.

Quote:
In awareness of the "no mechanical effects" clause, NPCs and players cannot react in any way to this character. They could walk into a temple of JuJu, encounter JuJu priests, or roleplay with JuJu enemies, and nobody would blink an eye either way.

Oh come on. Non mechanical aspects of characters come up all the time.

Shadow Lodge ****

Firebug wrote:
Because Specific vs General is how rules are interpreted when they potentially come into conflict?

That is not the only way they can be interpreted when someone thinks they come into conflict. "They have nothing to do with one another" is another option, such as a race trait and a racial trait, or trying to apply the rules for exotic weapons to any eastern weapons.

Shadow Lodge ****

Firebug wrote:


I just want the campaign leadership to chime in how to interpret it correctly, and which is the specific case, and which is general.

Specific vs general doesn't enter into it.

1 to 50 of 29,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.